AB1354 ULTRASOUND JOINT EXAMINATION BY AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM VERSUS BY A RHEUMATOLOGIST – FROM A PATIENT PERSPECTIVE
Authors: B. A. Frederiksen, M. Schousboe, L. Terslev, N. Iversen, H. M. Lindegaard, T. R. Savarimuthu, S. A. Just
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022)

Background The Arthritis Ultrasound Robot (ARTHUR) is an automated system for ultrasound scanning of the joints of both hands and wrists, with subsequent disease activity scoring using artificial intelligence. Objectives To describe the patients’ perspective of being examined by ARTHUR, compared to an ultrasound examination by a rheumatologist. Further, to register any safety issues in the use of ARTHUR. Methods Twenty-five patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had both hands and wrists examined by ultrasound, first by a rheumatologist subsequently by ARTHUR (see Figure 1 A, B and C). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were obtained after the examination by the rheumatologist and then again after the examination by ARTHUR. PROs regarding pain, discomfort and overall experience were collected. In addition, willingness to be scanned again by ARTHUR as part of future clinical follow-up was also collected. All ARTHUR examinations were observed for safety issues. Figure 1. A. The rheumatologist is performing the ultrasound examination. B. The ARTHUR system used in this trial used a GE Logiq 10 ultrasound scanner. C. ARTHUR started ultrasound scanning a RA patient. The patient follows the instructions given on the touchscreen and by audio. D. Overall experience with ultrasound scanning by Rheumatologist and ARTHUR. Results For baseline characteristics of RA patients, see Table 1. Table 1. Baseline Characteristics. CRP: C-reactive protein; DAS28CRP: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints combined with CRP value, RF: Rheumatoid factor antibody, CCP: cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Table 1 Patients Patients, n 25 Age (SD) 63,7 (12,22) Female, n (%) 17 (68 %) Erosive disease, n (%) 10 (40%) RF and/or CCP-positive, n (%) 17 (68%) DAS28CRP (SD) 2.8 (1.2) There was no difference in pain or discomfort between the examination by a rheumatologist and by ARTHUR (p=0.29 and p=0.20, respectively). The overall experience of an examination by ARTHUR (see Figure 1 D) was described as very good or good by 92% (n=23), with no difference compared to the examination by the rheumatologist (p=0.50). All (n=25) patients were willing to be examined by ARTHUR again, and 92% (n=23) would accept ARTHUR as a regular part of their RA clinical follow up. No safety issues were registered. Conclusion Joint ultrasound examination by ARTHUR was safe and well-received, with no difference in PRO components compared to ultrasound examination by a rheumatologist. Fully automated systems for joint disease activity assessment could be important in future strategies for RA management. Disclosure of Interests Bill Aplin Frederiksen: None declared, Maja Schousboe: None declared, Lene Terslev: None declared, Nikolaj Iversen: None declared, Hanne Merete Lindegaard: None declared, Thiusius Rajeeth Savarimuthu Shareholder of: Cofounder of the robotics company ROPCA, developing ARTHUR., Søren Andreas Just Shareholder of: Cofounder of the robotics company ROPCA, developing ARTHUR.